Raff: with just a little Googling, I could find a lot of papers that supports “my” MWP assertion (certainly not “mine” I will admit, as I have no desire to take credit for the hard work others have put into it), but have little doubt that you will just dismiss them all out of hand, so why should I bother?

And what about the BBC interview with Emma Thompson. Why didn’t they correct her when she said ‘our temperature will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2030’? Did they get her back on and make her retract? Did they publicly correct what she’d said at a point that would have made the same impact as her mistake?

I agree with Raff about there being rather little true scepticism shown around here. That's not the case for all commenters - I do sometimes see some folks, such as TBYJ, taking a more carefully thought-out view and pushing back on the more bizarre and extreme views - but it is quite clearly true that some readers readily accept things coming from their own "side" without question, and repeat them without checking them out.

I have defended you before, Richard Betts, and said you cannot be expected to always be on hand to contradict the more outrageous claims made in the media, even ones made by your peers.The same applies to commenters on this blog.

There are more people here than TBYJ who will correct/argue with people on the 'same side'. All of us have limited time, energy and abilities. There is just so much wrong with how the subject is often portrayed that choices have to be made.

Richard Betts I hope you encourage your co leagues to be sceptical about every scientific paper they read as well as chastising us here. What Ancel Keys did right and wrong in his research being a good research project for any new employee at the MO, also a lesson in how to become famous and influence politicians for 6 decades on flawed research.

Richard BettsThe important difference is that if I refuse to call out Andrew for using a misleading graph, no-one gives a damn — except the likes of Raff and Ken Rice who are only here to stir the shit anyway — while if no-one bothers to call out the likes of Emma Thompson or Vivienne Westwood on camera when they tell lies on camera or they only allow one side of the argument to be heard then the exaggerations and scaremongering that they spout become the received wisdom.Which of course begs the question as to why the BBC thinks that the scientific opinions of a second-rate actress and a passé dress designer are worth listening to in the first place.If "your side" would only get the ignorant non-scientist activists (which includes most of the Greenpeace and WWF and FoE spokespersons) to shut up and the scientists to behave like scientists then blogs like this wouldn't be necessary.

Richard Betts, yes, we praised your attempts at injecting accuracy... or a more scientific guess one might call it. But what about the thousands of other times? What about an official rebuke for the BBC when it goes off piste? A day doesn't go by without some person in a position of power spouting climate rubbish and you guys are quiet as mice. Take Prince Right Charlie today (albeit recorded before the Pars attack) claiming climate change is one of the major causes of the Syrian war.

Do all those silent institutions really believe that? Did they believe the 'scientific' papers that claim the same thing? Can we expect California to explode into warfare too?

You and Raff have a cheek to criticise us for not policing everything that's said on obscure blogs (compared to mainstream TV and News) but you do almost nothing to keep climate hysteria in check. Yes Dr Betts, you have done more than your colleagues... but that's not much to show for an entire field of scientists and their bandwagon. You personally can only do so much but have you voiced the need for a department that is tasked with officially keeping things in perspective? One that can respond to people like Emma Thompson without being called insane. One that can provide the BBC with 28 REAL experts for a training course so that when interviews like that are given, the interviewer can actually tell when the spokes person for a massive environmental charity is spouting crazy propaganda.

Unlike sceptics who do everything in their own time, your side is paid to maintain standards. There’s money to police yourselves. Perhaps fund a few less research projects looking for a connection between death loving fanatics and climate and a few more people to let the POTUS know when he’s not just a bit wrong but massively wrong.

Let me repeat what I said earlier: if you bothered actually reading the article, you will see why that graph was used, as its use was to illustrate a point between the two protagonists, not the veracity or otherwise of the graph.

Sadly, this falsely perceived attempt to mislead is used to once more bash those who are not fully signed up to the Climate Change Cult. Sorry, Mr Betts, but until the likes of you and your colleagues more vociferously address the blatant errors and outright lies promulgated by considerably more influential bodies than lowly sites like this, I will take your opinions of we sceptics with a whole barrow-full of salt.

TinyCO2Thank you for that.I might have gone on to say something very similar but that awkward thing called "life" intervened. We had a sharp frost last night and the dahlias were a greater priority than thinking up a lengthier refutation of Betts' concern with the ethics of what you rightly call an "obscure blog" (with apologies to Andrew).There is plenty of scepticism around. It's a bleeding shame that there isn't a bit more where it might do some genuine positive good As for example in the BBC or among Prince Charles' advisers or the Pope's.But then when you're trying to "save the planet" the cause overrides everything — truth, honesty, science ....

So I think it is clear that the Bishop posts graphs he knows to be false because that is what his readers expect. If he'd told the Viscount that the Tol 2009 graph was wrong, that it was replaced in 2014, that it and later graphs showed negative impact from now-on and therefore that nobody (or no one who expected to have some credibility) should claim that climate change will be beneficial based on these studies, his readers would have been most unhappy. And there would have been ructions at the GWPF (Global Warming Pseudosceptic Front) where Tol, Ridley and the Bishop are partners.

To repeat: the reason why the Bishop used that graph over which you are in such high dudgeon is that he wanted to illustrate a point between the two protagonists, not the veracity or otherwise of the graph, a point that would have stood out quite clearly, had you actually bothered to read the article. But then, it is obvious that you are in the pay of "Big Green", so trivialities such as facts are utterly irrelevant to your argument.

jolly farmerIt's all a question of phraseology or semantics rather than typos. Either makes sense in context. For once I was giving the warmists the benefit of the doubt. (Must be going senile).

RRAs I said in my reply to Betts Raff is only here to stir shit and I have finally lost all patience since he is now taking up even more space by starting an entirely new thread on the same subject to extend his whigeing even further. I now refuse to engage with him at all, which I am sure gives him yet another cheap thrill which appears to be all he's here for.